No Surrender

So we did not turn Baghdad into a democratic city on a hill, and we learned that the dismantling of Sunni tyranny would leave the Arab world's Shiite stepchildren with primacy in Iraq. A better country has nonetheless risen, midwifed by this American war. It is not a flawless democracy. But compare it to the prison it was under Saddam, the tyranny next door in Damascus and the norms of the region, and we can have a measure of pride in what America has brought forth in Baghdad.

If the LibDonkeys would put the same effort into defeating our enemies as they do into attacking our President, this thing would have been won by now. But in their usual Lib style of misplaced sympathies and misplaced loyalties, they instead want to appease our sworn enemies while seeing the President of the Untied States as somehow being more of a problem. Crazy backward Lib traitors… Why does anyone listen to them?

Personally, I see the deaths of lying Lib journalists who have done all they can to present to America a slanted and distorted picture of Iraq as a good thing. Every returning soldier bemoans the distorted, one-sided image that the Lib Media has presented us. Every one. That some of those enemy-aiding treasonous Lib liars are killed is kind of, well, nice.

Oh, and weep not for our all volunteer military boys. They hate you and your Libism too.

I will not argue you on our entrance into Iraq, although most of us were confident in what Saddam had at the time.

However, leaving is a horrendous option. We simply cannot leave Iraq in its present condition without allowing it to stabilize. If we were to do so:

1) Iraq becomes a open playing field for militants, warlords, terrorists, hell, even neighboring countries (Don't think past someone invading Iraq in its present state).

2)Our image in the international scene would be decimated even further than it is now, which, in my opinion, is pretty low at this point. Big bad country goes into Iraq, implodes it, abandons it.

3) We owe reconstruction/stabilization to the people of Iraq. This should never be questioned. Showing our committment to the people of Iraq will lead to #4,

4) A healthy Iraq could become a long-term ally in the Middle East. Presently, we have Israel and a weak Afghanistan.

The economy is a habitual issue in the generasl election. It was there in 2000, it was there in 1992, it was there in 1988. This economy will turn around this year, while you don't like Bush, he did it in his first term with a recession from 2000 coupled with a 9-11 slam and technology bubble-burst. Give the man credit where it's due.

The #1 issue in this campaign has to be foreign policy. Our image is shattered, we have to pick up new allies, we need to stabalize in Iraq, we need strength against Iran (Tell me you trust Manny). This is why you need to be extremely careful in who you elect.

Putting party affiliations aside, I don't see that ability in neither Obama or Clinton. I htink McCain's qualified for this from his nearly 30 years of foreign experience.

The shame is that these primaries are more of a popularity contest than a study of true quality. I would have voted for Bill Richardson this time around (and I hate to admit it, but I would have considered biden, ugh!).

With all these pressing problems that need addressing, what are the Democrats fighting about? Why, which would be more historic, the “first black” president or the “first woman” president. And then they simply spout the simplistic non-solution that they’ll “end the war in Iraq” absent any plan on how to do that responsibly and their sheeple gobble it up. Really shows where the LibDem priorities are and the mentality of their followers.